Changing the sale price of CDS land

[Rubaiyat]

How about some sort of "urban renewal" type grant. The CDS takes a deposit on the land with the understanding that the buyer will occupy the land for no less than 6 months and build on it immediately. When the 6 month contract is fulfilled the buyer is either gifted the amount in rent abatements or refunded (depending on the choice of the RA when making the bill).

If the land is abandoned before 6 months then the deposit is also forfeit.

This could work out well for new citizens, traffic, and our coffers.

On a side note I would like to see land freed up ASAP for rental/purchase to get income from it. Correct me if I am wrong but there is no way to currently buy that even with cash?

rs

[Rose Springvale]

All land in inventory available for purchase (having been unpaid the staturorily required time) is now set for sale at the statutory price, except the commercial land which the chancellor will make available as required under the Special Commercial land bid process. I believe that will open this week as well.

I appreciate all of you taking time to participate in the discussions. I have more to say, but i'd just delete the post anyway.

[Rose Springvale]

for pat's benefit. in reverse order.

1. If i had the luxury that my European colleagues have of having CDS meetings on a Sunday night, i'd be more than happy to stay around and discuss your issues. I'm in world pretty much every day, and read the forums every day as well. The reality is that the RA meetings begin at 11 am on Sunday, my time. This means that I can't go to church, i can't have brunch with my family, i can't even promise them i'll be available any time before 2 pm... later if i go to guild meetings.

Snark away, but maybe it's time we actually reconsider this meeting time.

2. This whole conversation about devaluing the land of existing citizens makes me just cringe. For one, i have a lot invested in CDS land. For another, you are either not listening or not reading the facts, so let me set them out for you.

a) the only land we proposed to set for 0L is land that Nobody seems to WANT. I'm not even sure setting it at zero will get it taken up. What i do know is SOME of it will, because of the number of people who've approached me to move to cds. We actually HAVE a law that allows the chancellor to not only set land for 0 L but collect HALF tier on it for six full months! That is how Sonja's shop in NFS was acquired!... that's right.. a great use of unused land, that wasn't paying tier, which brought in other citizens who added to our sims value, and she got it for nothing!

b) Even with the proposal to set for 0 on the table, well advertised and with full knowledge, we had five people choose to purchase land in CDS anyway. Why? because the land they wanted was land that they thought others would want too. When there is competition, true value surfaces. Remember your definition of market value.. that amount that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller when neither party is under a compulsion to buy or sell. Let's use Pat's former land for an example here. He bought the land for somewhere, i'm guessing, around 20000 L. He offered it for sale at various decreasing prices, in the end offering it to anyone for anything. No one bought it, and not only did Pat not get any return on his investment, CDS stopped getting tier payments because he abandoned the land.

Brian sold the SAME parcel of land several months later at a price he was happy with... and as i recall there were at least two people interested in buying at the time. The land didn't change. CDS didn't change. THE MARKET changed. That affects EVERYONE"s land value. The land we are talking about has NEGATIVE value.. it costs us the same tier whether we collect any or not. Fully occupied sims benefit us far more than any perceived harm that offering open entry to the project for no initial cost could ever do. People come where other people are. That effects the value of your land MUCH more than what anyone, including the government, sells for.

The reality is that no matter how much pretty language we dress it up with, everyone in SL is a renter. and to suggest that it requires lindens to the government from any one person to define ownership or citizenship is ludicrous. i take it you'd be happy if we sell for 1 L instead. Okay, done. Several of our prominent citizens started off with free land in CDS. I know because i gave it to them. It is the community that matters, not the dollars. i'll keep saying it until someone hears me.

I can think of no reason why we should offer reimbursements to anyone for land purchased. Sorry, that's not the real world. Anyone who sells land right now will lose money from their initial investment. The fact that our prices are at least 6 times higher than our neighbors is just not justified. I haven't heard anyone suggest that our statutory prices are appropriate anymore. We can speculate and guess at what would be the right price, and that is what we were doing when we decided to present this plan instead. Because anything else IS speculation. The RA can repeal the change as the market changes... but if you are asking us to come back every two weeks with market analysis, you probably are going to need to spend all that saved money on real estate professionals.

Fire sale of CDS Land? We own 11 sims. 715, 000 square meters of land, if you include the 3 homesteads. 520,000 m of land if you don't. We offered last week for sale 22,338 meters of land. We sold 7600 meters. That means we have, at most, 14738 m available to which the 0 L policy would apply to. At least 13202m, (taking out the monastery parcels.) 2.54% of the full sims. But if you add in the homesteads, it is 1.85%. Do you all truly believe the value of the 701,798 meters in the rest of the estate will be 'worthless" because we offer these parcels of land at 0L ??

We've already paid for those parcels. And they cost you and me and every other citizen of CDS, whether they invest one dollar per month or a thousand, because payment of the tier apportioned to those parcels comes out of our general funds. Just because we CAN cover tier doesn't take away our responsibility to use our assets wisely and be stewards for the funds we've already collected. I think that makes a very good case for a sale, notwithstanding the issue you continue to overlook, and that is the potential ...and VALUE...to bring more participants to our project who actually WANT to be here.

By the way, none of this is secret privileged information. it is available to anyone who wants to take the time to add.

[Timo Gufler]

All land in inventory available for purchase (having been unpaid the staturorily required time) is now set for sale at the statutory price, except the commercial land which the chancellor will make available as required under the Special Commercial land bid process. I believe that will open this week as well.

Hmmmm... For some reason the parcels in Monestary (Hamlet-3, Hamlet-4 and Seaview-2) are still not for sale. Were they forgotten?

[Rose Springvale]

i don't have any power in the monastery sim.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Rose

Thanks for responding to my earlier comment and questions. As I said at the RA meeting and in forum posts, I can see why you might choose to put getting steady rental income first and therefore sell abandoned land at L$0. This may even be the best choice if we are worried about the amount of land we have on the books unsold and there might be a problem with tier getting paid. (Though I'm not clear that this is the case).

I think we have reached the stage where we understand each other's positions but we still disagree. So, while I respect your opinion and your expertise, I still think selling off CDS land the Government owns for L$0 is fundamentally the wrong policy and should be opposed. The decision rests with the RA which is as it should be.

I get that the market decides the price of CDS land as it decides the price of other land in SL in a free market. My problem is with the Government artificially deciding that the price of land will be L$0 and then competing with its citizens and thereby depressing prices for everyone. The CDS Government has power and with that power comes responsibilities. If the Government gives land away it makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to get anything more than zero for their land-holdings. And sorry if I misunderstood but I thought the proposal was to "sell all future re-possessed parcels for zero (L$0)" and not just land that we could not get anything for?

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the 'list price' (which I agree is far too high for the current market conditions) and L$0? If the Exec were charged with getting as much as they can for abandoned land and only selling it at L$0 as a last resort, that might be a sensible way forward. I know that the land has already been sold but I see no reason for the CDS Govnt not to achieve a windfall where it can where this benefits all of us and helps to maintain the value of CDS citizens' landholdings.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

Rose

Thanks for responding to my earlier comment and questions. As I said at the RA meeting and in forum posts, I can see why you might choose to put getting steady rental income first and therefore sell abandoned land at L$0. This may even be the best choice if we are worried about the amount of land we have on the books unsold and there might be a problem with tier getting paid. (Though I'm not clear that this is the case).

I think we have reached the stage where we understand each other's positions but we still disagree. So, while I respect your opinion and your expertise, I still think selling off CDS land the Government owns for L$0 is fundamentally the wrong policy and should be opposed. The decision rests with the RA which is as it should be.

On the other hand, what about land AFTER we've gotten the initial sale? I'm not so certain abandoned land should be sold at 'market price', since it's a form of double-dipping. We could possibly auction it off instead.

[Claude Desmoulins]

If one is serious about "market price" then one has to let the market set the actual price. When a bank sells a foreclosed home (which I think is the closest rl analog here), they get what they can for it. Most sellers have a notion of wanting to recoup a certain investment and/or sell something for enough to clear the liens against it. In the case of CDS abandoned land, this doesn't apply once CDS has the parcel. Selling the land for $0L makes life easier for whomever is doing the selling than trying to find comps and or manage an auction process, and trades off up front revenue for future tier. OTOH, if this passes, it may make land abandonment more common, as sitting on your land and trying to sell it for something when there are $0L parcels available seems futile.

[Keila Forager]

As a new CDS citizen I have a few thoughts on the changing the sale price land and the selling of land in CDS in general.
I have a tendency to ramble sometimes, so just try and bear with me.
For starters, the land in CDS is outrageously overpriced compared to other private estates or even mainland. I've seen land in CDS priced from 8.8L/sqm to up to 23.2L/sqm. ( a 4096 double prim plot in Alpine Meadows for 23.2L per sqm) That is just crazy and a disservice to potential citizens who may pay that amount. If I paid the high price of land without all the info, I would feel cheated. As the odds are low they will recoup their cost if they decide to sell.
I just recently purchased 7000+ sqm of mainland for 15K. Just goes to show, the mainland that is selling is decreasing in price. I also recently purchased some mainland for $1L/sqm. Who would have ever thought?? I search the SL grid a couple times a month to keep current on what land is selling for. Mainland and private estates. Yes, there are places that are priced high and the land will sell , but for the most part it doesn't and I continually see the same plots go up and down in price and still remain for sale. I also have4096 sqm of land on a private estate. I purchased that for $999L from the seller, but had he abandoned that land, the estate would have sold it to me for approx $8000L. The majority of land on private estates and mainland is decreasing steadily in price. The average I've been seeing is 2L-5L per sqm. Sucks if you are trying to sell land, but great if you are looking to buy.
It is a fact! Land is devaluating all over the SL grid, from mainland to private estates. I've own small plots to an entire full prim sim and a homestead. None through LL, but through private estates. And I know I've never recouped my original costs. When I bought my first land 3 years ago, I couldn't imagine why there would even be an abandon button on the "about land" tab. I thought , "Who in their right mind would consider abandoning their land??". Well, since then I've abandoned 3 plots and an entire homestead sim. Am I crazy, no..ok yes I am..hehe, but with the economy, SL and RL and the devaluation of SL land, you can't pay the high price and except to get anything back. The ones willing to pay those prices have not done their homework , are newbies, really really want the land at any cost, have money to spend or have a plan or business that actually makes money in SL.
Me for one would like to make a bit of money, but mostly I'm here for the fun, the creativity, to meet some awesome people, and visit some great places. CDS has those things and we need to bring in long term citizens that want to be a part of the community. That is what makes CDS special.
As for renting vs owning. Unless you are considered the estate owner you are essentially renting. Even then you are renting server space from LL. I have owned and rented throughout SL with my homes and business and even when I thought things were fine, the estate owner would raise tier, or sell the sim or just decide to evict all the residents. Then I was back to searching for more shop space or another home. I now have a home and shop space that I hope is as permanent as it gets in SL So as to whether we own or rent. Yes, we "own" this land , but reallly we are renting. So that shouldn't be an issue when deciding a price for repossessed land.
As for changing the price of repossessed land to 0L , I was all for it, as it was proposed when I was considering buying land here, and I did and still do think I paid way more than the land was worth. Even with all the extras and amenities that CDS holds. Had the land been 0L or even cheaper I would have bought 2 plots instead of just one. As a new landowner and citizen, I'm a bit frustrated at the way the land sales were handled. First a lottery, then a proposal for 0L or cheap land, and then finally set it to sale on the map. Do we have that much land that is not owned by citizens and we need the tier?? I remember when my SL husband, now ex, bought us land here in March 2007. He said he had to be approved before he could buy and the dwellings also approved before he could build. I assumed that is no more.
. About land sales in general ( I'll come back to my thoughts on 0L pricing in a minute ), No, nevermind, I'll make it a separate post
Ok, I changed my mind about the 0L land sales. Yes there are a lot of estates that offer 0L to 1L land sales and then you just pay tier. And that is great if you are looking to fill out your estate and cover tier, but what I think CDS is looking for, or at least I hope is a community of people that become friends and neighbors and also keep the budget where it needs to be. I had a feel of community on my first land ever in SL and am hoping I can have that again here. I miss it. Can we cover expenses without charging the outrageous land prices??
As for private land, I think all citizens should be able to set what ever price they feel they can get or want. As for repossessed land, the original cost has already been recouped ,so, I feel that land should be set at a reasonable market value price with a rebate ( to be determined) to be given for a set amount of time( to be determined) living in CDS as a citizen. And when I say reasonable, I mean comparative to the rest of the SL grid . We not only want to get the land sold, but add to the community.
Well, that was a lot of thoughts to get to my idea across on changing the land sale prices. I'm at P190, renamed ~*Angel Forest*~, so come by and visit. My land is always open

[Soro Dagostino]

I put some thought to the issue -- and broke my own rule coming here to make a point about something that should be in "Legislative Discussion" [where it belongs].

1. There should be an active effort to auction the properties of CDS, with a "catalouge" of available properties -- stating the number of prims and the tier, who to contact and how to buy.
2. Notice of the Auction should be given to the nieghboring properties.
3. If the property does not sell within two months -- it then gets thrown on the bone pile -- "here it is for 0L$" -- pay two to three months [three would be my choice] non-refundable, tier -- in advance, and its yours. With that kind of up-front cost, the buyer are not going to take up the deal just to screw over CDS.

The process is Simple, allows the "interested neighbor" to keep the price of his/her property up at whatever level they see to be the "market price" [they buy it for that] and then, in the alternative, it provides a means for CDS to get a return on ground in the sims. The process does not allow the "neighboring owner" a free ride on the back of CDS, thus providing a long term benefit to the society of CDS.

Onward!

Soro.

[Rose Springvale]

While I think the participation of the community on this issue is great, it is kind of like raising a child. Everyone has an idea of the best way to do it. No one agrees completely on the details, and the final decision is left to the parents, with the state looking over their shoulder to make sure they don't do anything egregious.

We all seem to agree that there is a problem. Jamie proposed one solution. He proposed it on a trial basis to apply to a small percentage of the land in our projects. We've done the background research, we've listened to our constituents, we've considered the possibilities. We can spend the next two years tweaking the proposal, or we can just try something, and decide what doesn't work or does work when we have data to apply to our own community.

Someone compared this situation to the health care plans in the US and the current ongoing debate. This may not be a perfect plan, but it is better than what we have now. If each member of the RA wants to add his or her own touch to the program, we will be in debate for a very long time. And nothing will happen THIS term. Is that the legacy the 12th RA wants?

You elected a qualified Chancellor, presumably because you trust him. He has done a good job of leading our community through controversial issues, and for the most part, even those of us who disagreed with his proposals at the time, must, however grudgingly, agree that he was right. He may NOT always be, but I think he has the track record to deserve the support of the RA.

I urge you to continue the discussions, but let's pass THIS proposal now. Watch what happens... maybe nothing! Your Chancellor may well have changes to recommend, too. Then when you are all satisfied that your particular version of the plan is BETTER, repeal it and pass another.

[Arria Perreault]

While I think the participation of the community on this issue is great, it is kind of like raising a child. Everyone has an idea of the best way to do it. No one agrees completely on the details, and the final decision is left to the parents, with the state looking over their shoulder to make sure they don't do anything egregious.

Well ... the process of decision-making with debates and discussion is probably the reason why many people have joined CDS. We all are aware of the problems of land management. By discussing land management, we are discussing our fundaments. I think that this debate is a needs for all of us. I really believe that our community can find solutions to problems and face crisis. It is not the first crisis for CDS.

To respond to you metaphor, I don't see me as a child in CDS ... and I don't expect Mom and Dad here ...

[Rose Springvale]

Sorry, the metaphor clearly didn't translate properly, I'll try to refrain from symbolic speech on the forum in the future.

As to your point, of course we are here for debate and discussion. No one wants to limit that. But we have a tendency to carry on and on long past time to take action. I'd say that is one reason our project has stalled and stagnated so many times in the past.

In this situation, the Chancellor is charged with the responsibility of selling land. He's brought a proposal. You don't agree with his proposal. Other's do. It is time to vote on it, and determine if the RA wishes to actually support the people who are volunteering to DO the work, or continue to tie hands with no change. The former seems responsible and sensible to me, so long as you have any modicum of trust for the people in these positions. To the extent you do not trust us, then perhaps the issue is bigger than what the abandoned land is resold for. And perhaps THAT is the issue someone should just admit, and debate.

The Representative Assembly sets the course of the CDS. Individually, you do not turn the wheel of the ship.(oops, another metaphor. I mean, you don't go out every day and try to sell the land, host the events, or handle the complaints.) When you create complicated scenarios about things that are very simple in the rest of the world in which we all work, you increase the time commitment of everyone who actually does the work. Auctions and floating prices or prices which have no basis in fact, especially as they apply to land that is resold, ARE complicated scenarios that will not be understood. Look at how many ways WE can twist the meaning of something. Add that to someone new to CDS, or worse, new to SL. What I hear you all saying is that you ONLY want sophisticated, wealthy buyers who already know how everything works. If that isn't the case, then please look for a simple, easily communicated solution. You have one before you.

[Jamie Palisades]

I appreciate the words of support as well as the well-meaning disagreements so far in this thread. At least for the posters here in the Forums, or most of them, this is appropriate policy debate. As Arria pointed out, those are exactly the kind of debates and discussions that make us what we are, when carried out like adults.

Still, in tone, we could do much better. I found the personalized and negative tone of the last CDS RA meeting, on this topic, a disappointing return to the bad old days. When you don't like something, attack it ... and attack the person proposing it ... admit no possibility of compromise ... claim it's all unconstitutional ... the proposer is a dummy or crook or both. Bwah-hah-hah, I see the honorable gentlemen has refused to address my twelve valid arguments! Nyah, nyah. nyah. Etc. It was embarrassing. Must be election season, or just ego season. Somewhere, Ulrika, Ashcroft & ThePrincess surely are amused.

In spite of all that, the RA will return to the issue of "zero price for re-sold CDS land", next weekend. Possibly they will use time limits, or rules of order. Either way, my job is to bring and defend plausible proposals, to better CDS. Here, in a calmer venue, are my suggestions and answers to the questions I heard raised. Legislative language at the end. Real policy issues, when voiced comprehensibly, deserve real responses.

1. Please remember the scope of the proposed change: we are speaking only of land re-sold by CDS after it's recouped its sim purchase costs, approximately, in the original sale. In other words, repossessed or abandoned land. And we are talking about a temporary experiment.

2. Several suggested that an auction would be better. Here's why i didn't and don't recommend that.
a. That's a good strategy for income maximization. But that's not our goal. Our FISCAL goal is high occupancy. Our POLITICAL goal is fair distribution. "The richest guy wins" is not the way we ought to implement the latter -- and tends to skew against new citizens, too.
b. It's high-overhead, in personal time that must be spent by staff, or coding, or both. Our government does not have that staff. We should be using simple, and automated, systems wherever possible.
c. If we did want to preserve this thought, the simpler policy option would be to require that CDS first offer newly repossessed land at the statutory price for a month, and THEN sell for zero if it doesn't sell. But even that still would be getting more complex.
d. You see, I made a land PRICE proposal, not a land SALE METHOD proposal. We have a sale method in force. I don't propose to change it again. This is a manpower thing. RA members should think hard, and be less naive, about policies that increase the load on volunteers. Would Arria or Pat like to come run the auctions for us, for a percentage of the take? Let's not make proposals that don't have reasonable means to implement them. Rose and I each have put in more time in person-hours, each month, for CDS. in the last two terms, than the last few previous CDS administrations did for their entire terms. Our friends Desmond and Sudane do a lot in their own estates, giving more customer service to Caledon & SLNE residents than we do :) but - um - remember? They own them, and get the actual profits. Not our model.

3. Several suggested that a zero price would devalue holdings of citizens. That seems wrong:
a. Land varies in attractiveness and price! In CDS, some lots which are the right size, or pretty, or in the right place, NEVER go vacant. Even now. But, as Rose pointed out and others seem to ignore, we are talking about the price for the LEAST attractive lots, as evidenced by the fact that someone dumped them back on the government. If they had market value, the abandoning OWNER would've been likely to try and capture it by selling privately first.
b. The idea that people might buy land in CDS -- or indeed SL -- with a strong expectation of speculative gain, and we support it, is just silly, in the current semi-crashed SL land market present for over a year. No-one has disputed the latter. My judgment is that, on our cash flow statement, the reliability of our future rent stream is far more important than a windfall second sale profit.

4. Several suggested that a zero price would cause more "land flipping" or transient purchases. Personally I think that's a good critique .. not strongly likely, but possible. So I suggested that we require two months rent prepaid up front. That ought to represent a measure of commitment. That's why the proposed bill included paragraph 2, below.

5. A few suggested that there is some constitutional reason why zero prices land creates a legal problem under our laws. Sorry, that seems as specious to me now as when I first heard it, and I have searched in vain for a possible reason. Bluntly:
a. People give away land to others, who make productive use of it. Duh. Happens all the time; this does not result in a zero land value, and it does not make economists' heads explode.
b. The value of the land to CDS on OUR balance sheet, like most assets, has several components, including historical and future value. An asset's value is not simply the last paid price, and the value to CDS is premised on underlying estate ownership, not just record-owner of the parcel. In our case the original cost is a fraction of the underlying sim purchase cost, offset by the first sale revenue. Duh. The future value is the expected future rental stream -- from monthly income! -- discounted by a collectability discount and to present value. Double duh.
c. People who own our land are citizens, under our law. Period. How much they pay - or not - does not affect that. Never has.

My suggestion to those who think that there's a Constitutional issue is to amend the bill so that a portion of the up-front payment is allocated to price instead of rent. CDS cash flow would be indifferent to that -- and so am I. Seems an unnecessary waste of time though. If that's what the RA wants, though, please see the [[double-bracketed alternative language]] in the bill below.

Here's the original bill, from http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2592 :

1. Any parcel of land that is re-sold by CDS, after CDS repossesses it, will be sold for a purchase price of $0.
2. At the time of purchase, the buyer shall pay CDS two months' rent.
3. This act does not affect the price of any land offered for sale by CDS for the first time, like the property in a newly opened sim.
4. This act will expire on February 1, 2010. If the CDS RA does not act to extend it, the prices for sales of repossessed land by CDS will return to their levels set before this act was adopted.

If some think there's a possible constitutional issue, as vaguely asserted at the last RA meeting, it would be fixed by substituting the following:

[[2. At the time of purchase, the buyer shall pay to CDS an amount equal to two months' rent. One half of the amount will be applied as the land's purchase price to CDS, and the other will be applied to satisfy the first two months of monthly rent (local tier) at a 50% discount for those first two months only.]]

Regards JP

[Cindy Ecksol]

My suggestion to those who think that there's a Constitutional issue is to amend the bill so that a portion of the up-front payment is allocated to price instead of rent. CDS cash flow would be indifferent to that -- and so am I. Seems an unnecessary waste of time though. If that's what the RA wants, though, please see the [[double-bracketed alternative language]] in the bill below.

Here's the original bill, from http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2592 :

1. Any parcel of land that is re-sold by CDS, after CDS repossesses it, will be sold for a purchase price of $0.
2. At the time of purchase, the buyer shall pay CDS two months' rent.
3. This act does not affect the price of any land offered for sale by CDS for the first time, like the property in a newly opened sim.
4. This act will expire on February 1, 2010. If the CDS RA does not act to extend it, the prices for sales of repossessed land by CDS will return to their levels set before this act was adopted.

If some think there's a possible constitutional issue, as vaguely asserted at the last RA meeting, it would be fixed by substituting the following:

[[2. At the time of purchase, the buyer shall pay to CDS an amount equal to two months' rent. One half of the amount will be applied as the land's purchase price to CDS, and the other will be applied to satisfy the first two months of monthly rent (local tier) at a 50% discount for those first two months only.]]

Regards JP

Thanks, Jamie. Your posting is a fine summary of my concerns with the tone of our last RA meeting's debate as well as extremely helpful insight into the surprisingly complex issues surrounding the land sale pricing proposal.

I've already taken the time to chat with as many RA members as possible about last week's meeting and explore their feelings about both the original bill and possible amendments. But I'd like to take a moment here to publicly document my own feelings about the meeting and clarify my reasons for acting as I did.

First, I was not happy about the tone of the debate. I agree with Jamie: the tone was a return to the "bad old days" that he in his time as LRA, Soro in his time, and now I in mine have been trying to move away from. We have done much better up until last week, so I'm sure we can avoid another relapse as we move forward, and I will do my best to help that process along. I hope that not only my fellow RA members but also citizens who choose to speak will join with me in that effort.

Second, I'd like to explain one of my main objectives as LRA as I play my part in our CDS "experiment in virtual democracy." It would have been very easy for me to call for a vote last week. And if I HAD called for a vote, the Chancellor's proposal would have been approved despite the extensive concerns aggressively raised by several RA and community members. Some of you (including my Simplicity Party colleagues) wondered why I didn't do that. The answer is simple: I am much more interested in our community developing and implementing consensus proposals than I am in getting a "win" that leaves part of the community extremely upset. If our experiment in virtual democracy means that we simply replicate the aggressively partisan faction-based win/lose strategies we see in many real life organizations, we're not learning anything....nor are we demonstrating anything very interesting for those who are watching our experiment. Learning to create and implement proposals that not just a factional majority but most of the community can support (even if a proposal is not the "best" or "preferred" from some point of view) is a much more interesting and worthwhile objective, not just for CDS but for our real lives. At least that's what interests me, and as I continue work with my fellow RA members and with the Chancellor and his staff through the end of this term, I intend to do my best to explore options at each critical juncture in a way that generates solid consensus-based proposals that inspire spirited and respectful discussion rather than heated and possibly disrespectful debate.

Anyone who attended the last RA meeting or read the transcript will agree that I failed in my objective this time around. Although the majority of the RA was mildly in favor of the proposal, those who were opposed were vehemently opposed. Rather than force the issue and leave those opposed feeling that their opinion had been completely disregarded, I chose to defer the vote to this coming week. And I was sure that there must be at least one way to amend the proposal that would achieve the economic benefits outlined by the Chancellor while not affronting the sensibilities of those who believed that their rights as parcel owners would be violated by a "$0L" price for parcels re-sold by the community after being repossessed.

Right after the last RA meeting, Jamie spent a considerable amount of time and energy discussing his proposal with some of those who strongly opposed it. As you can read for yourselves above, he still firmly believes that his original proposal is in the best interests of the CDS community. But he has also put forward a suggestion for an amendment that has exactly the same economic impact while avoiding the appearance that actions taken by the community are completely devaluing parcels owned by our citizens. I expect that the RA may debate how many months or how much should be attributed to "parcel value" rather than "tier," but my conversations with RA members to date indicate that most are inclined to be comfortable with Jamie's suggestion as a compromise.

Although he was not the first to equate laws to sausages, Otto von Bismark is often quoted as saying "Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made." That's certainly true in my real life world, but I'd like to think that in our little virtual democracy we can experiment with ways of working together that aren't quite so distasteful. And in my eternally optimistic way, I'm looking forward to being part of that process this coming Sunday. Hope to see many of you there.

Cindy